Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / January 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

University of Texas on condom testing

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
PaulKing - 20 Jan 2005 10:48 GMT
Models of STD transmission

Condoms are made to withstand the rigors of sex. But the models used by
governments to test condom durability have nothing to do with sex.

Even if the models used to test condoms are reasonable indicators of
whether a condom will break during sex, and thus whether they will
function adequately in preventing sperm from reaching the female's
reproductive system, but they may be rather poor indicators of whether a
microscopic pathogen can pass from one partner to the other.

For example, the water test can detect holes only as small as 5 mm, but
this sized hole is many times the size of sexually-transmitted viruses and
even of the bacterium Chylamidia.

Similarly, the airburst test is insensitive to small holes. So here we
find new limitations of existing methods of testing condoms: these models
don't give us a good understanding of the barrier to pathogens afforded by
a condom.

That is, these models have serious limitations when considering condoms as
barriers to infectious disease.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT: -

http://www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301d/Topics/Condoms/Text.html
GMCarter - 20 Jan 2005 12:17 GMT
>Models of STD transmission
>
>Condoms are made to withstand the rigors of sex. But the models used by
>governments to test condom durability have nothing to do with sex.

there he is back again making another feeble attempt to justify
f.cking without a condom!

I knew you had it in you paul. I'm sure you'll spew the same crop of
discredited, ridiculous articles as you have in the past!

        George M. Carter
PaulKing - 20 Jan 2005 22:30 GMT
The only thing feeble here is your silly posts.

Is that the best you could do?

Hard to argue with a university paper.
PaulKing - 22 Jan 2005 09:45 GMT
That shut the idiot Carter up for a second.

Now he will post the usual insults I expect.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.